Hi all, As some here may not know the views of Mr.JP Gadkari of the National trust act and Paarivar as recently as 2009 when the same topic was discussed, it is beeter to read his views again. His views on "Disabled due to Mental illness" is well known.So will Mr.Gadkari answer how many disabled due to Mental illnesss are covered under the National trust act ? How many disabled due to mental illness are part of the "gharando " scheme? How many disabled due mental illness are part of the Arunima scheme? His letter to the Chairman of the national trust in 2009 is below.
Deal All, It is good that the controversial question whether Mental Illness should be included as a disability under the National Trust Act or not has come to the fore. This controversy has been brewing since 2003, soon after the National Trust Act became operative and the provision of legal guardianship became applicable for adults with mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy and multiple disabilities which are covered under the Act. While it was only a murmur in the beginning, it has now assumed a vociferous form and there is a noisy campaign through all available means, particularly through I.T. All kinds of arguments are being put forward to justify the demand that mental illness should be brought under the purview of the National Trust Act. Why this strident campaign and flurry of e-mails from all and sundry now and the time chosen for it? There is a particular reason for this. You are all aware that the process of reviewing all the disability related legislations and amending them suitably in order to bring them in line with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UNCRPD] is on. Drafts for amending the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the National Trust Act for the welfare of persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple disabilities are already in circulation. A huge debate at present is going on at the national level on these drafts. For the last five years or so mental illness lobby have been actively pursuading a demand that mental illness should be covered by the National Trust Act though there is a separate legislation called the Mental Health [MH] Act of 1987 in existence. The main argument of this lobby is that there is no simplified legal guardianship provision in the MH Act and therefore, they would like to have the benefit of this provision under the National Trust Act. The very basis of this argument is completely knocked off if the proposed amendment to the National Trust Act on abolition of the guardianship provision replacing it with the Supported Decision Making [SDM] structure is approved. But this is a hypothetical assumption. Even if the provision of legal guardianship remains in the National Trust Act there is no justification at all for the mental illness lobby to demand the inclusion of mental illness which is unfortunately included in the list of disabilities in the PD Act 1995. One has to take a serious note of the fact that mental illness with its very nomenclature is an illness - a disease and it cannot be termed as a disability. This illness can be cured with medication and probably a prolonged treatment. What these persons need is rehabilitation measures once they are cured. These provisions are there in the MH Act and also in the PD Act 1995. There is absolutely no justification of their demand for inclusion under the NT Act. It will not be out of place here to look at the historical background and the hard struggle which had to be waged by the parents of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities to prove that mental retardation or intellectual and developmental disabilities cannot be equated with mental illness. The parent movement which was then at its infant stage won a significant battle when the Indian Lunacy Act of 1912 was repealed, the mentally retarded were taken out of its purview and the MH Act was enacted for the purpose of giving relief to the persons with mental illness. The parents movement which had started taking firm roots in India by the time the PD Act was enacted in 1995 carried forward this struggle when it was noticed that there were no adequate provisions in the PD Act to fulfil the specific needs of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities by demanding a seperate legislation for persons with these disabilities. The parents movement under the leadership of Parivaar succeeded in this battle too with the National Trust Act being enacted in 1999. When the National Trust Act was being drafted this historical background was kept in mind and the provision of legal guardianship was included in it. It was also kept in mind that the enactment of NT Act was specifically for the persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and not for persons with mental illness or disease. It is therefore, totally unjustifiable on the part of mental illness lobby to call it (non-inclusion of mental illness in the NT Act) as a "mistake". Therefore, there is no question of "correcting" this"mistake" as being demanded by some of the protogonist of the mental health lobby. In our view it was a mistake to include mental illness in the list of disabilities under the P.D. Act It is surprising and painful to note that all and sundry without even having the rudimentary knowledge of the nature of intellectual and developmental disabilities are equating even the persons with cerebral palsy and autism with mental illness. Let these elements concentrate on the problem of mental illness only. Since the debate has been going on, some interesting aspects have also come up. For instance, the NT CEO Mr. Atul Prasad has raised some important questions even indirectly suggesting to make provision of Legal Guardianship for MI under the MH Act itself. Mr. Atul Prasad has also raised another important question "whether we should compartmentalise disabilities or should we have a comprehensive Act with special chapters to deal with specific requirements (needs), if any, of different disabilities?" To the first question or the suggestion made by Mr. Prasad we fully agree that necessary provision for legal guardianship should be made for the mentally ill in the MH Act itself. We have no objection at all to have one comprehensive Act with special chapter to deal with specific requirements and needs of different disabilities and keeping intact the beneficial provisions in the existing Acts and also adding more appropriate provisions in the light of those provided in the UNCRPD. J P Gadkari President, PARIVAAR "Greatness lies not in never falling but in rising everytime we fall" Captain Johann samuhanand, BANGALORE INDIA 91 80 42023252 www.captainjohann.blogspot.com >________________________________ > From: THE DISPATCH <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >Access India <[email protected]>; >[email protected]; Posterous Dispatch ><[email protected]>; Posterous MH News ><[email protected]>; Posterous WMIF ><[email protected]>; GG Dispatch On Disability ><[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012 11:00 PM >Subject: [MhaReformIndia:650] Why one comprehensive disability law is >undesirable > > >June 28, 2012 > >J P GADKARI >With reference to the editorial, ‘A law that enables,’ published in The Hindu on June 18, 2012, J.P. Gadkari, director of PARIVAAR, >a national confederation of parents organisations of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, says: > >The idea of an “umbrella” disability legislation suggested at the conclusion of the editorial is not a new one. A group of some disability activists started pleading for ‘One Comprehensive Disability Law’ as soon as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment set up a committee consisting of representatives of mainstream disability organisations in the country on April 30, 2010. They started agitating for changing the terms of reference of the committee which was assigned the task of drafting a new disability law (in consonance with the UNCRPD ratified by the Government of India on October 1, 2007) to replace the existing PwD Act 1995. > >The Drafting Committee which consisted of representatives of all sections of disability took this issue for consideration at the very outset of its deliberation although it could have stuck to the terms of reference of the Committee and proceeded with its agenda. Going out of the way, it devoted lot of its precious time with a full-fledged discussion on the issue of ‘One Comprehensive disability legislation vs Multiple laws’ as they exist today. > >After a thorough discussion, the Committee with an over-whelming majority came to the conclusion in favour of multiple laws, as they exist today, albeit with necessary amendments to bring them in line with the UNCRPD. Their conclusion was based on the need to provide specific services, particularly for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities [PwIDDs] and psycho-social disabilities. > >The committee members belonging to this sector also explained that though the PwD Act 1995 had included Mental Retardation and Mental illness, it was necessary to have a separate legislation to meet their specific needs particularly dealing with rehabilitation and habilitation and life-long care. They also pointed out that despite the inclusion of these two disabilities in the PwD Act, they still remained most marginalised among the persons with various disabilities. Therefore, they expressed the apprehension that they will again become marginalised if they become part of One Comprehensive disability law. > >Later this majority view of the Committee was upheld by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Committee went ahead with its mandate and completed its job by the end of June 2011 and submitted the draft for the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities bill to the Ministry. > >During its deliberations and countrywide consultations, the Committee also took the view that all other disability laws should also be amended simultaneously with close coordination between the Ministries of SJ&E, Ministry of Health and HRD in order to avoid inconsistencies and duplication. > >Early this year the National Advisory Council undertook the exercise of extensively review the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill and has broadly concurred with the stand taken by the Committee. > >We, therefore feel that there is broad unanimity and consensus in the entire disability sector on this issue and an umbrella law idea is not acceptable to it. > >http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3577736.ece -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (Reform) India" group. >To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >[email protected] >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/MhaReformIndia?hl=en >------------- >Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA >[email protected] >Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc >[email protected] >India-specific news and views related to mental health >[email protected] >Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues >[email protected] >Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social >learning amongst peers > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (News 'N Views) India" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MhaNewsViewsIndia?hl=en ------------- Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA [email protected] Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc [email protected] India-specific news and views related to mental health [email protected] Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues [email protected] Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social learning amongst peers
